114
top 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] anotherspinelessdem@lemmy.ml 52 points 1 week ago

Damn, it's almost like in a healthy society automation amd technology reduce tedium and allow workers to work more safely, productively, creatively, humanely, willingly, intentionally, and comfortably.

[-] PKMKII@hexbear.net 47 points 1 week ago

It’s the old meme: under capitalism, automation means layoffs. Under communism, it means more paid vacations.

[-] WhatDoYouMeanPodcast@hexbear.net 12 points 1 week ago

ohhhh, that makes sense. I was thinking that if automation doesn't mean fewer hours of work then it still sounds like infinite growth on a finite planet.

Why shouldn't automation fundamentally displace workers? There's less work that needs to be done! That should be a wondrous, beautiful thing. All that remains is to distribute the goods appropriately. Am I wrong?

[-] TheBroodian@hexbear.net 8 points 1 week ago

I would think you're exactly right

[-] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 35 points 1 week ago

What understanding the Labour Theory of Value will do to a motherfucker

mfers never learn that all value derives from labor. Can't steal surplus value if you have no workers. At least capitalism properly

[-] miz@hexbear.net 34 points 1 week ago

the whole edifice of liberalism is built on pretending that the labor theory of value isn't true

[-] PKMKII@hexbear.net 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The irony is that in early liberal economic philosophy, LTV was considered common sense. A hunk of metal does not obtain the value associated with a fork until someone manipulates the metal into a fork. It wasn’t until Marx took LTV to its logical conclusion that they invented marginal theory to create the narrative that ownership is injecting value somewhere along the way.

[-] TheSovietOnion@hexbear.net 5 points 1 week ago

At least capitalism properly

They'd need to study Marx for that one

[-] lil_tank@hexbear.net 21 points 1 week ago

a human-first approach to automation

Couldn't think of a bigger endorsement, what's scary is that given it's from The "Economist" it was probably supposed to sound like a bad thing.

[-] SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago

a human-first approach to automation

But at what cost? /s

[-] CommCat@hexbear.net 21 points 1 week ago

I think there's another important dimension to the billionaire push for AI and automation. There was a thread on r/collapse sub about an good indication of a nuclear or other catastrophic event. Using flight tracker, you will be able to see an immediate jump in billionaire private jets taking off and flying to their bunkers. Someone suggested that when shit hits the fans, the human pilot will probably use these jets to fly their own family to safety instead. Not a problem for the Epstein class if everything was AI automated, no need for human pilots to fly them to their bunkers and no need for human guards and servents while they hide out in their bunkers. When will we see Neo-Luddite movement start burning down data centers?

[-] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 19 points 1 week ago

This is fundamentally linked to misunderstanding of what automation is and does, within the U.S.

Automation, if you are doing it correctly, does not eliminate workers, it simply changes what they are doing and how they are doing it. What automation does is two things, the first is that it mitigates exposure to the four D's (Dull, Dirty, Dangerous, Dear).

The second, and much more important thing is that automation allows you to increase your quality (the consistency of your process, how close does each product resemble each other), which then, over time (usually much faster than training someone to do it) can be used to improve your functionality (how well the part actually does its job).

What this means is you can use workers that would be one a line doing whatever, and move them into quality control, with improves your ability to improve functionality, etc. etc.

[-] WagesOf@hexbear.net 7 points 1 week ago

Under neo feudalism it's not now much money the oligarchy gets to keep, it's about how much they get to keep out of the hands of the rest of society.

Power imbalance is the point.

[-] ComradeRat@hexbear.net 29 points 1 week ago

neofeudalism

Its called capitalism. Capitalism has always been and always will be like this. Capitalism has always had a power imbalance and an underclass with no political power or hopes of advancement. There has been no qualitative changes in the fundamental mode of production since the 19th century, just accelerations and increases in scale. The who idea of "neofeudalism" exists merely to whitewash capitalism by saying everything happening today isnt "real" capitalism

this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
114 points (99.1% liked)

technology

24373 readers
211 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS